“I hadn’t seen the video until I went to Sky last night to do the paper review.” Iain Dale (this morning)

No, he’d just read the reports and made his initial judgement (and a ‘funny’ joke or a Freudian slip of epic proportions) based on his prejudices.

Well, the damning nature of the video evidence may have dragged Iain closer to centre ground, but the doubts still continue from three of his main comment contributors, who appear to cling to some dim hope that Ian Tomlinson might have been strangling kittens moments before that policeman gave him a playful shove:

“You say he was ‘attempting to get home’, but the facts (i.e. the circuitous path he was taking on his way home) don’t seem to support that. You say he wasn’t abusing the police but how do you know? If a policeman is getting suspended/prosecuted for that shove I’d better turn myself in for some of the tackles I made playing football yesterday.” – PragueTory (Dominic Fisher) (more)

“The video said Ian Tomlinson was ‘attempting to get home from work’ – oh, really? So he just happened to be wearing plain clothes and accidentally found himself in front of a police cordon that was clearing the area of protestors during a mass gathering around the G20 summit? Please, don’t insult our intelligence. This was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to portray Ian as an innocent bystander when in reality he was very much part of the protest.” –Letters from a Tory>

Kettling is wrong. Indiscriminate kettling now appears to have led to a man dying simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time… not that it would have been right to kill a man just because he had a far better idea of why police might be rounding up people in the street and hemming them in.

Often at protest events in London, some police officers will have a number or letter missing from their lapels, and that’s just the start of it. The Met have been getting away with the use of this tactic and others for quite some time now, and I’d readily wager that several unsavoury tactics and practices will now come to light and make a political nuisance of themselves.

[MINI-UPDATE (10 Apr) – Headline altered for the sake of accuracy. Tomlinson was assaulted moments before his collapse, not his death. I would say ‘heart attack’, but let’s wait for the second autopsy ordered by the IPCC, eh?]

So the next time Craig has difficulty publicising this government’s complicity in torture, Iain Dale will withhold any publicity (via his website and/or his ‘politically neutral’ magazine) because of one comment that he chooses to take personally?

Bloody hell… there’s holding a grudge and there’s holding a grudge. I know this measure is typical of Iain (it’s one of the reasons why he is a poor ambassador for blogging and why no fair poll of weblogs can be conducted on his carefully-filtered website) but surely this is a hissy-fit too far.

(I can only assume the ” I have gone out of my way to support you” bit refers to the Usmanov post that Iain has waved in my face in the past; as if he were doing me/Craig a personal favour instead of standing up for a principle he believes in or any silly nonsense like that.)

It is unclear if Glen Jenvey features heavily in War on the Web by Jeremy Reynalds, or if there are so many of his tall tales in it that his claim of being co-author is, ironically, quite credible:

Either way, Glen Jenvey describes Jeremy Reynalds as a friend, they worked together to some extent on a book that has yet to see the light of day, and Jeremy Reynalds recently wrote twoarticles that were quite sympathetic toward our Mr Jenvey (one of which has since been removed):

I’ve just been in touch with Jeremy Reynalds, who insists that he has “no advocacy position” on Glen Jenvey, and claims merely to have given Glen Jenvey an opportunity to tell his side of the story, as he felt there was an imbalance in reporting at the time; in his own words, Jeremy Reynalds’ intention was to “present Mr. Jenvey’s response to the charges against him and to share some of his perspective about why they surfaced,” as he felt this had not been done.

However, after delivering one side of the story, Jeremy Reynalds appears to have failed to keep up with both sides of the story, as he now claims not to have heard from our Mr Jenvey in a month, and to be unaware of any accusations of sex crimes… i.e. the pile of turds currently at the centre of the story.

(Psst! A new round of freshly-crafted smears emerged at the weekend. All you need to know is that the only departure from the established plan/theme is that the perpetrator is no longer posing as a representative of the Daily Mail.)

One can only wonder when exactly the story ‘dried up’ for Mr Reynalds, because I didn’t catch any part where he pointed out that someone might have been wrong about the Guardian being in league with extremists thing, but at some stage he clearly stopped pursuing this dynamite story, so I can only assume that the leads stopped coming in… at about the time Mr Jenvey… stopped… calling………..*

… no, don’t mind me; I thought I saw a little revelation lurking in the shadows there, but it appears to be a trick of the light.

Anyway, as I’ve pointed out a couple of times now I’m experiencing some story imbalance myself in places, and Jeremy Reynalds appears to have dropped the ‘Guardian in league with extremists’ exclusive that was keeping him so busy… so I’ve asked him if he wouldn’t mind taking the time to tell my side of the story.

You know; to present my response to the charges against me and to share some of my perspective about why they surfaced, and like that.

Recentevents showed that few newspapers allowing comments were publishing any criticism of substance, and they rarely if ever engaged under comments, which is an entirely un-blog-like thing to do, and certainly not on during a phase where mainstream media companies were trying to horn in on the blogging action while rubbishing the reputations of those in their way (i.e. us).

Further, a combination of economic forces and selfishness was leading to widespread sackings and an alarming downturn in quality, as profit was shoved ahead of the public interest more often and to clearly unacceptable extremes.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve all seen the recent/sudden downturn in the quality and reliability of mainstream news and comment, coinciding with alarming outbreaks of carelessness and sheer malice in some places.

We’ve got at least one rogue publisher (Richard Desmond) thumbing his nose at the PCC, and while every news outlet is begging us for chunks of our private lives that they can publish for profit (with or without our permission), no bugger will answer our emails or address our concerns when something that is clearly false has been published, and no effort has been made to remove, correct or (Dog forbid) alert readers to the error. Meanwhile, pretty much the same applies to the (blissfully) few ‘leading bloggers’ who claim to be challenging the establishment.

The only news outlet that’s in any way compelled to answer is the BBC, who find themselves crippled since Andrew Gilligan shot off his fat gob, and under constant attack by the same parties described in the previous paragraph (i.e. those who demand accountability of others, yet think themselves above it).

Clearly the time has come for us to form organised squads and start hitting people with sticks.

If you’re of a mind to do something positive and powerful about outright lies in the media, I invite you to join the Media Watch Rock-a-Hula, now in progress.

Much like Sun Lies and Mail Watch, the job (described in detail here) is to target outright lies, document them where possible (on your own site if you wish), and pursue a correction with vigour when circumstances call/allow for it.

While I expect this to be a modest-sized crowd with maybe a few dozen experienced/dedicated bloggers, writers and researchers on board at first, there are roles that pretty much anyone can play.

Yes, even you.

You could easily be that one person in a thousand with the right expertise, contacts, access or influence required to get a specific job done quickly, and if not, someone has to carry the pitchforks and kerosene.

Anything you do will be on a strictly voluntary basis and you can do it with or without a website. You’ll probably even learn a few things as we go along, and as natural talent groups form within the crowd (as they usually do), we can casually give birth to little beasties like the long-overdue Express Watch and more.

And it is with that (and that only) in mind that you should join me on Twitter, as that is all I plan to use it for:

I hate it when publishers do something that’s obviously wrong/dishonest, and then refuse to publicly admit it and/or apologise for it in front of their readers.

I’m not talking about one person here; I’ve got at least two newspaper editors at it at the same time as this wank-stain (who, by the way, today knowingly published a false claim/implication that i was a liar and homosexual – and former lover of his, to boot – only deleted it after the second notification, and then refused to apologise or even admit that he was refusing me a right of reply on that or anything else).

And the issue here isn’t just what these people are doing to me (and others) right now, but what they are likely to do to me and others in the future if they are continually allowed to get away with it.

Anyway, let’s put all that aside for one moment to enjoy this little ray of starshine… for tomorrow, we go to war.

In the old days of ‘journalism’, if a hard-working reporter wanted to get hold of a family snapshot, he’d have to pocket a framed picture or two from the mantelpiece while the interviewee was making tea or being comforted/distracted by an accomplice.

Now, in the marvellous age of digital photography, all newspapers have to do is get a snapper to rattle off a few pictures of your pictures.

He can then go on to sell copies, even if you don’t sign any paperwork giving him permission to do this, because from that point on, the photographer (or their agent) can claim copyright on these images of images.

Apparently.

I’ve contacted Epicscotland and the Independent to try to find out what’s happened here, but it doesn’t look at all right to me. Still, there’s an opportunity for David Dinsmore to indignantly bitch about the one thing that might not be his fault in the hope that it will distract us from the things that clearly are.

(waits)

Coming up next: Who wants to share my copy of a camera-recorded version of Watchmen? It’s free, and entirely legal, according to the newspaper people.

–

MINI-UPDATES – The online version of The Sun’s stunt has been withdrawn, and the journalist listed as author of the piece – Yvonne Bolouri – has issued a statement claiming that she has nothing to do with any of it, which puts David Dinsmore clearly in the frame. Dinsmore has not been in touch; he would instead prefer to bully/cajole Jamie by phone by the looks of things. Jamie has been advised that this is an old newspaper dodge to be avoided; if you suspect someone of being a liar and/or a cheat, conduct the conversation by email, *not* telephone.

An investigation into a serial liar has led to someone being falsely and maliciously accused of paedophilia (again), only this time, I was a direct target. I say ‘again’, because a very similar thing happened in Guildford a few years ago. Iain did not act over Guildford, even though his denouncing of ‘the deed if not the man’ or something similar could (and still maintain would) have been decisive.

This time, Iain was again in a unique situation to help bring a halt to an obvious paedo-smear, because I (being an inconvenient member of the great unwashed) was having difficulty getting past the staff of a Conservative MP that he happened to know.

At that stage, Patrick Mercer (Conservative Member for Newark) was still publicly aligned with serial fantasist and paedo-smearing liar Glen Jenvey, and it was vital to get word directly to Mercer; for his benefit, as well as mine.

Iain Dale, being a former associate of Patrick Mercer, was the only blogger I knew who could contact him directly and let him know what was going on. So I asked him to do that.

Almost a full day passed, and I had to chase Iain (!) for progress or a progress report. Iain then claimed to have made contact, and said nothing when I replied giving the clear impression that I thought that Mercer knew about what was going on from that point on.

What followed was a sleepless night of me wondering how the hell I was going to tackle the problem of an MP willing to stand by and allow me to be smeared as a paedophile.

But Mercer wasn’t standing by and allowing it, because didn’t know about it at all at that stage; in fact, he didn’t know about it until I went and told him myself. When I sourced a copy of his mobile number and called him, it was the first he’d heard of it.

But when I confronted Iain about this, it took him close to 10 hours to deliver this excuse:

He did what I asked him to do?!

No, he didn’t.

I asked him to contact Patrick Mercer, not his bloody secretary, or his researcher or his effing dog walker.

I wrote/spoke specifically of having difficulty getting past staff in his office, and like anyone else in the country, I could have called/emailed either of Mercer’s offices myself at any time, and had already done so, otherwise how could I be having difficulty getting past them… and Iain or anyone else with an IQ above 85 should have known all of that even if I weren’t entirely specific about my need to contact Patrick Mercer personally so he personally was aware of the situation. Which I was.

There are limited circumstances in which you can substitute custard for ice cream.

1. Thanks for being so lazy in my time of need, Iain. Glad to see you took my reminding you of the bad blood that remains over the Guildford incident for you to really stretch yourself and do something that would have no effect whatsoever

2. This is where lying about calling someone a ‘nihilist’ on the basis that you don’t even know what the word means costs you. So if you’re telling the truth this time, Iain, it’s dumped you in the shit because you’ve lied your arse off in the past. See how it works?

Iain’s claim to privacy is morally dubious at best, but I’ve pixelated one paragraph of unrelated waffle (something about a dog eating homework) just in case there’s anything truly sensitive in it. Which I doubt.

(Psst! From here on in, Iain Dale gets the same treatment as the lying smear-merchant Glen Jenvey; everything he says to me is on the record, and I’ll dig up and publish past emails as and when I please because Iain has shared my private emails with his mates before, and I am sick of his stonewalling me, telling me lies when he does have the balls to answer me, insisting that his lies remain confidential, and then making out to his readers that I’m upset with him and/or pursuing him for no good reason.)

Five days have passed since that email and this follow-up post, and Iain has refused to say anything further.

Instead, he’s banned me from his weblog, and is now publishing the usual bullshit comments about me being an attention-seeking authoritarian conspiracy theorist, and making out that I’m imagining or inventing some or all of this in an effort to ‘get’ him.

Because I’m the paranoid one, obviously.

I go head to head with people I disagree with, but I’m not a bastard about it, I don’t lie to people, and I don’t cheat them (or my readers) when they try to have their say under comments like Iain does.

If you are falsely accused of being a paedophile and Iain Dale doesn’t like you or your politics, then Iain will stand by doing as little as is humanly possible, even when he’s in a unique position to help. I’ve watched him do it twice now, and I have the email records to prove it.

More people need to know how low this man can go. They also need to know that his claim to be an authentic, accountable and friendly blogger is nothing but a stage front.

I look forward to Iain making out that I am doing so because I am jealous of his ‘talent’ as a writer.

Well, it looks like the regional versions of tabloids are seeing an sudden upsurge of lazy bastardness and web-nickery with the downturn in the economy. Someone should write a paper on that, but in the meantime, it’s time to kick arse all over again…

Jamie Ross – Here Comes The Sun: They edited it to within an inch of its life, as if they were hell-bent on whittling it down to the twenty least entertaining and most disjointed words of each blog. It makes me look like an utterly abysmal writer who got in the paper thanks to a dying wish foundation scheme. They put words such as “MOCKED”, “FORCE” and “SILENCE” in huge emboldened letters outwith the main text, presumably for the benefit of the vast majority of Sun readers who can’t read full sentences. They’ve specifically chosen words which make it sound like I’ve been living in a Nazi concentration camp for the past seven months. I may have used these words at some point but, if they really had to summarise seven months of weekly entries in three words, I’d have suggested “TESTICLE”, “BALLS” and “COCK”. They inexplicably used a picture I had never seen in which my eyes are closed. They used a family photograph which I only allowed to be used in The Independent. They made me inadvertently write in the fucking Sun, effectively destroying all the good work that’s gone into my writing CV recently. All of this, need I repeat, without asking me, notifying me, paying me or consulting me.

At one stage the author (and rightful owner of this material), comedian Jamie Ross, submitted a comment under his own story on The Sun’s website – and they deleted it!

(This not only adds insult to injury, it also shows that The Scottish Sun are determined to stand by their unique version of reality, despite what they may claim about wanting to set this right. Like Iain Dale, they are far too precious to let readers know when they’ve made a grievous error.)

Even worse, when Jamie got in touch via email, they offered him the pittance of £300 as payment.

Time will only tell if they have the audacity to declare in their defence that a vulnerable young writer initially accepted these terms; stealing is stealing, damage is damage, and a pittance is a pittance.

(Perhaps someone at News International will cry ‘poor’ after throwing all their money at Jade Goody… who, we can only assume, had a rare form of cancer that stops tabloids from stealing from you. Either that, or we’ve finally arrived at the stage where tabloids can take what they like from you and do what they want with it if you’re not willing to give Max Clifford 15% of the take.)

Jamie advises me that The Scottish Sun have also issued a private apology, but they’ve laid in heavily with the mitigation and tried a few cons in the process (such as claiming that a similar feature being in The Independent gives them the right to steal his content and hack it to bits because it’s “in the public domain”), so I for one doubt their sincerity; people who are sincere typically don’t lie to you during an apology.

Besides, any apology for a public deed should be conducted in public (and given equal if not greater prominence than the stunt that calls for an apology).

Jamie may yet decide to keep/bank the payment that may cover use of the material to some small extenet, but this does nothing to address the harm done to this man and to his reputation by their reordering and repurposing his material in a way that makes him out to be a tabloid hack who is desperate for victim status*.

(*Ironically, judging by the repeated/shameless tabloid thievery I’ve seen over the years, his status as a cancer victim may be the only thing that earns him a proper apology.)

The offer of payment also fails to address the personal photos that they used – without permission – when presenting Jamie’s material out of context.

This is not only a copyright issue, but also one of reputation and harm.

But even The Scottish Sun deserve a chance to set things right a second chance to set things right.

As we’ve learned in recent weeks, there’s a way of doing these things, and the first order of business is to contact the editor involved so they can initially ignore us, and then issue a few pathetic legal threats.

The details you need appear below, along with a copy of my letter… Round Two to follow:

I am writing to you to demand a public apology (in print) for your disgraceful treatment of Jamie Ross.

That apology should make clear that Jamie’s material was used in your newspaper without permission, edited* without his permission and presented next to personal photos that you did not have permission to use.

(*’Hacked to bits and wanked to the max’ is a better description, but I’ll leave that up to you. You may also wish to apologise for refusing Jamie a right of reply by deleting feedback that he submitted to your website in good faith.)

If I have to explain why this apology is called for, then there really is no hope for you, and we may as well cut straight to the legal threats, because in this open letter (and therefore on my website) I describe you as a shockingly careless editor, if not a manipulative money-grubbing cad, and this – along with the headline ‘David Dinsmore steals from cancer patient’ – will be a top search result for your name in less than an hour.

Make this right. Now.

(Or come and have a go at me because you’re far too precious to apologise. Your call.)